Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyson (operating system)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Illumos. Malinaccier (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson (operating system)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sources in the article are primary and non-independent. With a WP:BEFORE, I did find this, which appears to be a self-published blog, of which I'm not sure about the reliability. Otherwise, everything else I found was about vacuum cleaners. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable niche software project, only other source I found was another blog (this one in Russian) and a few forum posts. MCE89 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this was useful only as preserving history of OpenSolaris offspring or side-projects.

Any few-lines mention of it in a general article about these offsprings would be preferable, but there wasn't any such article by the time I wrote this. Jwarnier (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: GNG. Could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability, no sources can be found. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I’m not sure why my prod was deleted as its not controversial •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by Phoronix (Phoronix), but probably at best a redirect somewhere. IgelRM (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same source I linked above. Do you have a redirect target in mind? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we did want to redirect, some target options would be OpenSolaris#Derivatives (only lists notable derivates so not a great option IMO), Oracle_Solaris#Open_source_derivatives (seems to be the most suitable target to me), Comparison of OpenSolaris distributions (would need to merge as it's not currently listed and I'm not sure whether it's notable enough for inclusion) or Illumos#Current_distributions (second choice). MCE89 (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake but it would help if you had mentioned the name Phoronix instead of "this". I would say it's a reliable trade source. IgelRM (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Illumos. Based on looking at old email threads, this appears to be a significant toy port in the Illumos community. RS sourcing for this kind of niche FOSS stuff from this time is a bit hard to come by (lots of email threads etc but not a lot of concrete mainstream coverage) -- Sohom (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support that and I think the phoronix source does as well. IgelRM (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.